MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chromosomal evolution in the Ehrlich-Lettré complex of hyperdiploid mouse ascites tumors: Results from seven laboratory strains

2009· article· en· W2049132305 on OpenAlexaff
Karin Nielsén

Bibliographic record

VenueHereditas · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Genetics
FundersCancerfonden
KeywordsBiologyKaryotypeChromosomeGeneticsHeterochromatinPloidyPeriod (music)Molecular biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chromosomes of 7 strains of the hyperdiploid Ehrlich-Lettré mouse ascites tumor (ELD) were analyzed by conventional stainings and by G- and C-bandings. A tendency to slow decrease in chromosome number during a 20-year period was revealed in the 7 strains and in the ELD complex in general. A G-band idiogram of the normal mouse chromosomes was elaborated with numbering of regions and bands. By G-band analysis the following average composition of the ELD karyotypes was indicated: unchanged mouse chromosomes (30%,), marA, marB, minutes (11%), mar1—mar12, telocentric markers (10%), anonymous telocentric markers, often strongly rearranged (50%). Great differences were revealed among normal chromosomes and markers in their capacity to persist in the tumor stemline as structurally stable units. The presence of some unchanged chromosomes in most cells of all 7 strains indicated that they involved selective advantage. Evidently chromosomal evolution has operated by preferably maintaining certain elements unchanged and by submitting other elements to heavy rearrangement. The C-band analysis showed that, in addition to the centromeric C-heterochromatin present in all chromosomes, some had interstitial C-bands, as marA in all strains, mar5 and mar7 in specific single strains, and others in numbers varying among the strains.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHereditasSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207